2011 (7) TMI 632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hrough CENVAT Credit is ordered to be recovered from M/s BSNL, O/o GMTC, Raj Nagar Telephone Exchange Building, Ghaziabad in terms of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to section 73 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.20,16,142/- (Rs. Twenty lakhs sixteen thousand one hundred forty two only) is ordered to be recovered from M/s BSNL, O/o GMTC, Raj Nagar Telephone Exchange Building, Ghaziabad in terms of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 73 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. 3. Service Tax amounting to Rs.93,85,214/- (Rs. Ninety five lakhs seventy two thousand nine hundred eighteen only) is ordered to be recovered from M/s BSNL, O/o GMTC, Raj Nagar Tele....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....91,74,734/- the Appellants provided taxable as well as exempted services, therefore, Revenue wants to restrict the utilization of credits to the extent of 20% in respect of the service tax payable on the taxable services in view of the provisions of Rule 6(3)(C) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also restricted the utilization of credit which is taken in respect of capital goods.  The contention is that this restriction is only applicable in respect of input credit or creit on input services and not in respect of credit on the capital goods.  The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BSNL vs. CCE, Trivandrum reported in 2009(13) STR553(Tri.Bang.) and in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt not exceeding 20%.  The contention is that the restriction is in respect of utilization of credit which includes the credit on the capital goods also.  It is also submitted that the appellant had not provided any data in the monthly return, the quantum of credit in respect of capital goods input ervice separately.Therefore, at this stage to quantify the demand on this ground is not possible. 6. In respect of other demand, the contention is not as per the appellant documents which were produced during the audit shows the figures non-taxable service which were much more than the monthly return and in respect of denial of credit, the contention is that the appellant failed to produce the duty paying document, therefore, credit i....